State v. Roscoe

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Michael Roscoe, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000906

Appeal From Lexington County
Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-334
Submitted March 1, 2015 – Filed July 1, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Mary Williams Leddon, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers of Lexington
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Wilson, 389 S.C. 579, 583, 698 S.E.2d 862, 864 (Ct. App.
2010) ("Appellate courts have recognized that an issue will not be preserved for
review where the trial court sustains a party's objection to improper testimony and
the party does not subsequently move to strike the testimony or for a mistrial."); id.
("The rationale for this rule is clear; without a motion to strike or motion for a
mistrial, when the objecting party is sustained, he has received what he asked for
and cannot be heard to complain about a favorable ruling on appeal."); id. ("When
an objecting party is sustained, the trial court has rendered a favorable ruling, and
therefore, it becomes necessary that the sustained party move to cure, or move for
a mistrial if such a cure is insufficient, in order to create an appealable issue."); id.
("Moreover, as the law assumes a curative instruction will remedy an error, failure
to accept such a charge when offered, or failure to object to the sufficiency of that
charge, renders the issue waived and unpreserved for appellate review."); State v.
Patterson, 337 S.C. 215, 226, 522 S.E.2d 845, 850 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Because a
trial court's curative instruction is considered to cure any error regarding improper
testimony, a party must contemporaneously object to a curative instruction as
insufficient or move for a mistrial to preserve an issue for review."); State v.
McEachern, 399 S.C. 125, 146-47, 731 S.E.2d 604, 615 (Ct. App. 2012) (holding
the issue of whether the trial court should have granted a mistrial was not
preserved because the appellant failed to object to the curative instruction and
failed to move for a mistrial after the trial court gave its curative instruction).

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, LOCKEMY, and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.